Standing Committee F

[Mr. Peter Atkinson in the Chair]

High Hedges (No. 2) Bill

Clause 1 - Complaints to which this Act applies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: Let me quickly take the opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), who I hope will be with us in a moment, for his contribution to the earlier Bill. I also thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), and I am happy once again to acknowledge his efforts, as I did on Second Reading. Without them, we would probably not be here today. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and his officials for their extremely helpful work and for the greatly appreciated assistance, advice and occasional warnings that they have given me.
 Clause 1 sets out the type of complaint with which the Bill deals. If one owns or occupies a domestic property, and one thinks that the height of a hedge on someone else's land affects one's reasonable enjoyment of that property, one can complain to the local authority. The Bill uses the shorthand term ''neighbouring land'' to describe where the hedge is growing, but that does not necessarily mean that it must be next door. It could be several gardens down the road, but if it adversely affects one's property and impacts on one's enjoyment, one may take a complaint to the local authority. 
 Let me say at this point that I have been contacted by Lodders solicitors of Stratford-upon-Avon, in the county of Warwickshire, regarding the definition of neighbouring land. The Minister and I have carefully considered the points that they raised, and we feel that the Bill's wording meets their concerns, although I shall extrapolate if the Committee wants me to. 
 To return to my previous point, the hedge does not have to be growing in someone else's garden and could, for instance, be on parkland that backs on to the property. It is not where the hedge is located but the effect that it has on the quality of life that is important. 
 Let me briefly mention the issue of empty property. The Bill contains a special provision to allow owners of empty properties to bring a complaint. We considered the issue because such people may, for example, be unable to sell their house because of the high hedge—that is not unknown. 
 At this stage, let me pay tribute to the well known organisation, Hedgeline, which has been assiduous in pursuit of the Bill. It has raised several points, including the one about empty property, which will be addressed in Committee.

James Purnell: Will my hon. Friend clarify what impact the Bill would have on a hedge on the other side of the road? I was looking at just such a hedge in Thoresby avenue in my constituency this weekend. Several people from the houses on the other side of the road came out to complain about the hedge, saying that it was ruining their quality of life by totally depriving them of light. The hedge is in the garden of an empty property. Would it be covered by the Bill?

Steve Pound: I thank my hon. Friend. I am familiar with the environs of Thoresby avenue; indeed, I once had the great pleasure of visiting them with him. The Bill specifically states that it is the hedge's effect, rather than its physical location, that is important. The hedge could be 500 miles away—[Laughter.] I appreciate that that is pushing the envelope a tad. None the less, it could be some distance away. If the objective geometric criteria established by the Building Research Establishment show that a householder or occupier is suffering loss of light or enjoyment, however, the hedge will come within the ambit of the Bill. Perhaps I should withdraw the suggestion that a hedge may be 500 miles away and say that I hope that the Thoresby avenue clause will stand part. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend and that he will allow me to visit the sylvan splendours of Stalybridge again in the future.
 The Bill allows for people to complain to their local authority if their reasonable enjoyment of their property has been adversely affected by the height of a high hedge. The authority could be asked to intervene if the excessive height of a hedge has resulted in some loss of amenity. The Bill's wording offers the flexibility to deal with a range of problems associated with high hedges. Those problems include the obstruction of daylight and sunlight—jointly, or as separate issues—as well as loss of view. In addition, someone could bring a complaint if a small garden was dominated by a neighbouring hedge, making the situation uncomfortable. Damage to plants would also be covered, provided that the damage was attributable to the height of the hedge. For example, a tall hedge may prevent light from reaching the plants, or it may be too high for the complainant to be able to trim branches that overhang the property, which may shield plants from rain. 
 Finally, I turn to the slightly contentious—if not controversial—issue of roots. There has been much discussion about roots. Many of us have become experts in an area that we never previously imagined we would have any knowledge of, let alone expertise. If the Committee wishes, I could talk—if not bore—for hours on the subject of the preference of roots for growing in cool, damp places, and their inability to pierce water pipes. However, I will spare the Committee that, unless Members drag it out of me. 
 The Bill specifically excludes complaints about the effect of the roots of a high hedge. In particular, that means that complaints about root-related property damage, including subsidence, are not covered. As hon. Members are aware, those matters are already covered in existing legislation. As with overhanging branches, people have the right to cut back to the 
 boundary any roots from a hedge that encroaches on to their property, so a remedy is already available to deal with most of those matters. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - High Hedges

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: Clause 2 defines a high hedge as:
''so much of a barrier to light or access as—
(a) is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and
(b) rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.'' 
There is a power to extend the definition of a high hedge through regulations under clause 20. That would allow us, for instance, to include deciduous or individual trees at a later date. Most hon. Members who have studied the Bill will realise that clause 2, as a clause of definition, is one of the more contentious ones. Many of us have received letters from people referring to trees that do not come within that definition. I suggest that it would be impossible and impracticable for us to seek to extend the Bill to include all arboricultural and organic tree growth.

Bob Russell: I wonder whether the hon. Member could explain why his Bill cannot deal with the issue of a single tree. In a high-density residential area, a single tree on a boundary, or in a garden, can cause massive problems to the neighbourhood, in the same way that in a more salubrious part of the borough, a line of trees would. A single tree can be just as damaging. Why can the Bill not deal with the matter of an individual tree?

Steve Pound: The Bill is not intended to apply to individual trees. I accept that individual trees can be the focus of disputes between neighbours, but the Bill does not set out to remedy all perceived problems with trees. The Bill is specific; it addresses a specific problem in a specific way. With respect, I suggest that were we to try to include every tree-related neighbour dispute, we may be here for many years, and not all of us would have that privilege. The Bill does not seek to discourage the planting of suitable trees in a garden, but it concentrates on the main problem, namely that of tall screens of foliage. If the hon. Gentleman were minded to table an amendment at a later stage, or to draft a separate Bill, many of us would look at his proposals with interest. For now, we wish the Bill to address the specific problem that we face.

Mr Adrian Flook: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify where the 2 m should be measured from—the complainant's side or the tree owner's side? If there is a step down between two back gardens, where would the 2 m start?

Steve Pound: I am absolutely delighted that that question has been asked; what a good question it is. Some questions defy the ability of a humble parliamentarian to give a straightforward answer. I
 have not the faintest idea, but I suspect that the Minister may be able to assist me.

Tony McNulty: Clause 2(1)(b) says clearly
''two metres above ground level'',
 so it is wherever ground level is on the disputed boundary. If it is anything other than that, I am sure that inspiration will be forthcoming, but that is the starting position. 
Mr. Pound rose—

Mr Adrian Flook: For the sake of clarification, 2 m above whose ground level?

Steve Pound: May I try to answer? The muse of inspiration has perched upon my shoulder. We suggest that the 2 m should be measured from the ground in which the hedge is growing, which is usually on the owner's side. That just came to me, and I cannot imagine why I neglected to mention it earlier.
 The clause defines a high hedge as 
''so much of a barrier to light or access as is formed wholly or predominantly by a line of two or more evergreens; and rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level.''
 Taking the definition as a whole, we envisage that a local authority will ask the following series of questions when considering a complaint under this legislation. First, has the hedge that is the subject of the complaint two or more trees or shrubs in it, and are they roughly in line? Secondly, does it comprise wholly or predominantly evergreen or semi-evergreen trees or shrubs? Thirdly, is it over 2 m high? Finally, does it act to some degree as a barrier to light or access, even though it may have gaps in it? If the answer to all those questions is yes, the local authority can go on to consider the effects of the hedge on the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of his property in accordance with clause 1. 
 That is the basic approach that we would expect local authorities and others to adopt in determining whether a particular hedge is one to which the Bill applies.

Bob Russell: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that we are not necessarily considering a boundary line? Some people might try to get round the regulations by planting trees 2 or 3 m into their gardens. Can we have confirmation that, irrespective of where the line of two or more trees or hedging is planted, it would be deemed to be an offence?

Steve Pound: In future, we shall refer to this as the Thoresby avenue criterion. It does not matter where the hedge is if the effect is a loss of light, outlook or amenity.

Mr Tony Clarke: I apologise in advance for complicating matters further, but there are occasions on which public land allows for car parking at the rear of somebody's premises. With the car park sub-base, the land levels between a car park and a neighbouring property could be quite different. Measuring from the ground level of the car park, surely even a hedge 1 m high would cause light nuisance or disturbance to the neighbour. Has
 that point been raised in any of my hon. Friend's previous discussions?

Steve Pound: I shall say two things. First, the Bill applies only to domestic properties and secondly, one of the many beauties of this exquisite legislation is that one can happily grow a hedge to whatever height one wishes unless somebody complains about it. If I lived adjacent to a car park in the Sixfields area of Northampton, and the local authority, which was excellently run until last week, decided to grow a row of trees, I would be probably be grateful. If I complained from the perspective of a domestic occupier, I would be within the ambit of the Bill, but the other way round would not apply.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Domestic property

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: The clause defines domestic property as a dwelling or its associated garden or yard—or, in the case of some hon. Members, the vast acreages that are attached to their properties. For those of us who live in London, a garden or yard is pretty generous. The clause makes it clear that one can make a complaint if one believes that the high hedge in question is adversely affecting either one's garden or one's home. By way of illustration, one person may be concerned about the effect of a hedge on a garden only, whereas another may be concerned about, say, the lack of light in a living room. A complaint could be made under the Bill in both cases.

Bob Russell: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the situation would be in respect of a mixed hereditament?

Steve Pound: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. [Interruption.] Whoops, there go my notes—I am on my own from now on. The Bill applies to domestic property, but if a property were used for a mixture of domestic and commercial purposes, the Bill would protect the living quarters from the effects of a neighbour's high hedge. However, if the use were commercial only, the provisions would not apply.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Procedure for dealing with complaints

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: I am luxuriating in the experience of having a Parliamentary Private Secretary for the first time in my life. I know why they are so valued.
 The clause sets out the procedure for dealing with complaints, which must be made to the local authority 
 whose area contains the land on which the hedge is situated. Complaints must also be accompanied by any fees that the authority sets. The level of such a fee must not exceed the amount to be specified in regulations made under subsection (7). 
 Under subsection (2), the local authority may reject the complaint if it considers 
''that the complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve''
 the matter without involving the authority or if it considers 
''that the complaint is frivolous or vexatious''.
 I draw attention to that matter because it was raised on Second Reading and answered magnificently by the Minister. Some Members have been concerned that the Bill might contain tools that the frivolous and vexatious could utilise. That is a legitimate concern, and I understand it, but I consider that it has been addressed in the Bill's wording. The exclusion given in subsection (2) was drafted specifically to deal with that concern. Given the absence of hon. Members who raised the matter on Second Reading, I rather hope that they have been satisfied.

James Purnell: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was a similar power in, I think, the Greater Manchester Act 1981, which was abolished when the various Acts that related to the powers for town councils were rolled into the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982? As I understand the matter, the powers to do with overshadowing trees were omitted—perhaps by accident, although no one quite knows why. That power was successful in Manchester and did not lead to any of the complications that hon. Members were worried about on Second Reading. Therefore, far from being a dangerous innovation, the Bill returns us to a state of grace that happened to exist in Manchester in the early 1980s.

Steve Pound: It is almost a unique experience for me to listen to one whose worship of football tends to concentrate on the Highbury area praising Manchester, but I give credit to my hon. Friend's comments.
 I am sure that the legislation concerning Manchester to which my hon. Friend refers is well known to all hon. Members here gathered, although it was specified in local authority byelaws. That legislation did not establish a common framework across the United Kingdom. Unitary urban authorities could enforce such legislation and a number did. My hon. Friend's substantive point—that the absence of frivolous and vexatious complaints is a tribute not only to the good sense of the burghers of Manchester but to the way in which the Bill was structured—is well taken. 
 As I said, the clause sets out the procedure for dealing with complaints; the complaint goes to the local authority—the district, borough or unitary council, and their equivalents in Wales. The local authority may charge a fee if it wishes, but the Bill provides for the Government to set a maximum level of fee as well as enabling the local authority to refund fees in appropriate cases. 
 I turn to the subject of mediation. I am sure that all hon. Members would accept that the best way of settling such disputes is for people to talk to one another and to agree a solution. Sadly, the rest of the world may not be as reasonable, and mediation is occasionally not an option. However, the Bill encourages such dialogue by giving the local authority powers not to proceed with complaints if it believes that a complainant has not taken all reasonable steps to resolve the matter without involving the authority. 
 As I said earlier, the local authority can refuse to deal with a complaint if it considers it to be frivolous or vexatious. The only requirement is that if the authority decides not to proceed with a complaint, it should notify the complainant as soon as possible. If the local authority proceeds with the complaint, it must decide two matters, which are set out in subsection (3). It must first decide whether, because of its height, the hedge is adversely affecting the complainant's reasonable enjoyment of his property. Throughout the proceedings, when I say ''his'' I also mean ''her''. 
 If the local authority finds that the height of the hedge is causing problems, it must then consider what action, if any, should be taken to remedy the situation and to prevent it from recurring. In reaching those decisions, the authority should take into account all relevant factors and assess each case on its particular merits. I understand that the Government intend to publish guidance on the Bill for local authorities, and I am sure that the Minister will deal with that. 
 The Government are keen to ensure that local authorities operate the legislation fairly and consistently. National guidance will be important in helping to achieve a measure of consistency. Such guidance will deal with the full range of issues that local authorities could be asked to take into account. It would probably expand on the advice in the popular and widely read leaflet ''Over the Garden Hedge''. That contains information on issues such as safe maintenance, privacy, loss of sunlight, obstruction of daylight and the blocking of views. 
 In many cases, it will come down to a question of balance between preserving privacy and safeguarding the amenity of neighbours. Those are the sort of judgments that local authorities are used to making—for instance in determining planning applications.

Bob Russell: On that last point, which part of a local authority would be held responsible for dealing with such matters? The hon. Gentleman has just referred to the planning laws, and he spoke earlier of public health matters. Will the council be dealing with the problem as an environmental matter or a planning matter? Does he have a view on which it ought to be?

Steve Pound: I would not be so presumptuous as to say what a local council should do, particular so ancient a one as the hon. Gentleman's. In reality, it is a matter of planning and enforcement. For the majority of local authorities in England and Wales, enforcement is part of the planning process. It is therefore reasonable for that to be the locus. However, most local authorities have an arboricultural section,
 which would clearly be involved, and environmental health officers, too, may come within the ambit.
 We are not here to specify; the Bill provides a structure, and it is up to the local authority to decide how to enforce it, whether through its environmental health officers, its arboriculturalists or its planning and enforcement department. It matters little; what does matter is that something should happen.

Tony McNulty: Should the Bill be successful, the Government will issue guidance on the process as it impinges on local government. However, my hon. Friend is right that it is entirely a matter for the council.
 As my hon. Friend said, we shall also be making clear regulations on the level of fees. The process needs to be seen in the context of the link with clauses 1, 2 and 20. One of the problems with previous Bills on the subject, which were blocked for some reason or other, was, as we found in our debates on clauses 1 and 2, the difficulty of defining either the compliant or the high hedges. 
 After a review and due consultation on the nature of the definition and of the complaint, clause 20 deliberately allows for those areas to be revisited in the context of the complaints process outlined in subsection (3). Once it has been put into practice, we shall have a body of experience on how it works. Most eventualities are covered, and in a flexible manner. That is one of the Bill's strengths, which is why the Government support it. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 - Remedial notices

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: Before moving on, I draw the Committee's attention to a letter from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, copies of which may have been sent to other hon. Members. In it, Ben Stafford, the society's parliamentary officer, expresses concern that clause 5 may be contra-legislative, in that it could impact on the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. For instance, a nesting bird might be found in a leylandii hedge that was pruned under the Bill. Mr. Stafford gently and generously reminds me that such offences are punishable by penalties of up to Ł5,000 or up to six months' imprisonment—per egg. However, I am assured that there is no contra-legislative effect. Local authorities will act in accordance with best practice and guidelines. It is unlikely that osprey eggs will be scattered to the four winds by the whirling chainsaws of the Colchester arboriculturalists. Of that, I am confident.
 The clause deals with remedial notices, which are to be drawn up by local authorities and set out the action that must be taken to remedy the adverse effects of the hedge. In most cases, we are talking about a specific requirement to reduce the height of the hedge, and possibly an ongoing requirement to maintain the hedge to prevent further problems arising. The local 
 authority cannot require the removal of a hedge or its reduction to below 2 m in height. Hon. Members will be aware of the extensive correspondence that ensued after the Second Reading and Committee stages of earlier attempts to legislate, when opponents stated that to reduce a high hedge to 6 ft would kill it. I am assured by Hedgeline that many such hedges that were reduced to that height 15 or 20 years ago are flourishing, and I have seen some of them. The lopping or semi-castration of such hedges does not kill them. 
 The clause sets out in detail what must be included in a remedial notice. As well as specifying the work that has to be carried out on the hedge, it must, among other things, indicate when the initial remedial work should be carried out and explain the consequences of failure to comply with the notice. Although there is a time limit for carrying out the work to remedy the original problem, a continuing requirement to keep the hedge at its reduced height would be open-ended. That maintenance requirement could run for as long as the hedge remained on the site. A remedial notice will therefore be binding not only on whoever owns or occupies the land at the time it is issued, but on their successors. 
 Finally, as long as the remedial notice is in force, there is an obligation on the local authority to register it as a local land charge. In that way, prospective buyers of the property would be alerted to the commitment that they would be taking on. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Withdrawal or relaxation of

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: I mentioned on clause 5 that a remedial notice could last for ever—or at least for as long as the hedge remains on the site. It is important, therefore, that the notice is not set in stone, for all time. For that reason, clause 6 provides that a local authority can withdraw a remedial notice or waive or relax its requirements. Unless the Committee would like me to speak for longer, I commend the clause on that basis.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 - Appeals against remedial notices and other decisions of relevant authorities

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: The clause provides rights of appeal against a local authority's decisions under the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Appeals procedure

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: The clause allows the Secretary of State to set down in regulations the procedure for dealing with appeals made under clause 7. There is a long list of the criteria that the regulations might cover, from specifying the grounds for appeal to the awarding of costs. As these are purely procedural matters, the regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament. I am assured that the Government intend that there should be prior consultation on draft regulations.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Determination or withdrawal of appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: On the one hand, I am grateful for the dispatch with which we are proceeding, on the other I am getting a tad breathless. Clause 9 describes the powers of the appeal authorities—that is, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—in determining appeals. Under the clause they may allow or dismiss appeals either in total or in part and they may quash or vary remedial notices; this is remarkably permissive legislation. They may also issue such notices in cases in which the local authority has decided not to do so.

Tony McNulty: Briefly, not least to allow my hon. Friend to draw breath, I shall make two points on clauses 8 and 9 which may be of concern to hon. Members. First, the Government consider that the initial local authority decision, together with the appeal process and the further possibility of applying to courts by way of judicial review, comply with article 6 of the European convention on human rights. I know that that was troubling hon. Members. Secondly, the planning inspectorate is likely to be the body to which appeals will go in England. That is still under discussion, but it is the way in which we are minded to proceed should the Bill complete its passage through both Houses.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Peter Atkinson: Order. I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman's moment in the parliamentary limelight. However, if, for the convenience of the Committee, he would like me to take together some of the clauses that he does not wish to speak on, I can do that.

Clause 10 - Powers of entry for the purposes of complaints and appeals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: I thank you, Mr. Atkinson, not just for the able way in which you are chairing the Committee, but for your kind comments. I would say only that I wish that I had known that before.
 The clause relates to the powers for entering the land, both to establish whether there is a problem and in connection with any subsequent action. It provides for prior notice, supplementary powers, safeguards and appeals inspectors, and delineates the offences.

Bob Russell: Bearing it in mind that we are talking about quite large living structures, why should it be necessary physically to enter the land? Would not it be possible to take photographs—to stand and admire—so that landowners need not experience the nuisance of the heavy-footed local authority sending in its troops?

Steve Pound: I do not recognise the description of the heavy-footed local authority—the jack-booted gauleiter is a breed that we do not recognise in west London. Yet again, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the perspective from which he views the problem. In many cases, one will have to visit what is literally the root cause of the problem to establish its precise location, if for no other reason than to establish where ground level is. The clause is drawn sensitively so that the facts can be established. If the facts were not established, it is unlikely that appeals against enforcement could be resisted.

Bob Russell: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I fully support the Bill, and I hope that it is enacted. The purpose behind my questions is to ensure that people at appeals and inquiries will not be able to find loopholes through which to escape.

Steve Pound: It is precisely for that reason that we require designated officers to enter the land; we want them to make a visual assessment and a subsequent report.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: I should like the Committee to have dealt with clause 11 formally, but it is one of the more significant clauses—even in a Bill as full of significant clauses as Christmas puddings are full of raisins.
 The clause provides the enforcement provisions that will exert pressure on a recalcitrant owner to cut the hedge and keep it trimmed. Failure to comply with a remedial notice is an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding Ł1,000. It also 
 makes provision for daily fines if the requisite work remains outstanding. I would like to point out that people will not be prosecuted simply for growing hedges. The provisions will come into play only if someone refuses to comply with the local authority's remedial notice. 
 If any hon. Member thinks that the provision is unnecessarily draconian, let me say that it is the Minister's opinion, and that of many of our advisers, that it is essential to have fines of such levels. The magnitude of the pain caused to people by unthinking or malicious neighbours is commensurate with the extent of the fine. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 12 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Orders and Regulations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Pound: As we have gone through the Bill, I have identified several areas where the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales has powers to make regulations. The clause sets out the parliamentary procedures that they must follow when exercising those powers.
 Two types of regulations can be made under the Bill. The ones we have come across so far are about detailed procedural matters, such as dealing with appeals. As I indicated previously, those will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. I have been assured by the Minister that the Government will consult on them beforehand. 
 The second set of regulations, which will be made under clauses 18 to 20, will allow the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to amend certain provisions of the Bill. Any proposal to allow primary legislation to be amended through regulations is always a sensitive matter. The Bill therefore requires that regulations made under those clauses must be debated in both Houses of Parliament, under the affirmative resolution procedure. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 16 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House.

Peter Atkinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expeditious dealings.

Steve Pound: Thank you, Mr. Atkinson, for conducting the orchestra so well.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
 Committee rose at nine minutes past Three o'clock.